“Extra! Extra! Trademarks Show Consumers Sources!” What Telecommunications Can Learn From IP Law To Combat “Fake News”

Formal news broadcasts play a role in a lot of games that focus on story: Deus Ex: Human Revolution centers itself around the news broadcaster, and the game culminates in the decision of which news story to broadcast. Starcraft II’s Terran campaign allows the player to explore the storyline by watching news broadcasts. Borderlands 2 allows players to follow news broadcasts from different sources as the main storyline progresses. In each case, there is always a gap between the news story that is presented and the information the player has. Whether the news is explicitly propaganda, merely biased, or simply missing information, each game underscores the fallibility of the news as a primary source for information.

Subjectivity, bias, and context can change the interpretation of a news story. Words themselves can also be subject to changes in context and intent. The term “Fake News” gained fame when used by Trump to accuse CNN of, essentially, being left-of-center. However, it has more recently been used to refer to Russian hackers spreading propaganda and disinformation on Facebook and other social media under the guise of non-biased, traditional-style newsmedia.

Trademarks: How We Know What is From Whom

The goal of trademarks is to reduce consumer confusion by establishing clear connection between goods/services and the manufacturer/provider. This consumer knowledge is considered essential to a healthy marketplace and – in many cases—to consumer safety. Applying the same fundamental concepts of trademark law to telecommunications law might have a positive effect on combating certain forms of so-called “Fake News.” By requiring each news source to register digital certificates with social media platforms, consumers could be more confident in the source of their information. The information may still carry the biases of the institution, editor, or author of the news piece, but the consumer would be aware of that possibility from the initial contact with the article or video. Just as trademarks do not enhance the quality of a good or service, digital certification would not ensure high-quality, un-biased news containing only perfect information. Similarly, even under robust trademark law, counterfeiting (and other violations) do occur. There would be a risk of various hacking attacks that would allow “Fake News” to be published under the name of a news source that did not actually produce it. However, such a hack can be addressed and corrected in ways that are not possible in a news marketplace without identifying information for news releases.

Trademark law may even be brought to bear directly on the Fake News problem. News outlets often develop their own styles and designs that remain consistent over time, eventually becoming associated in the minds of consumers with the outlet. This could be interpreted as trade dress, and a case could be made that this is a type of intellectual property subject to legal protection. Enforcement of this would likely be very difficult against foreign, anonymous violations, but creating a culture of more regimented, clearly defined news outlets would be beneficial in helping consumers spot outliers that don’t fit the known news providers—and treat such new providers with appropriate scrutiny and supplemental research.

 

 

Advertisements

Regulating The Internet? Not the Tubes Themselves…

If Net Neutrality is an argument about economics (and federal administrative law), Content Regulation is an argument about ethics and culture.

Net Neutrality is becoming an old hobby horse for a lot of people. It gets a lot more attention than most telecommunications policy issues. Even though questions about copper wire lines vs fiber optic cables actually affects more people, the internet is generally united by the fact of its own existence.  This is about regulation at the highest level, determining the equality and/or equity of access to content. No one online is indifferent to the internet—the only debate about net neutrality is which policies are best for the consumer and the telecommunications marketplace (or, in the United States, “telecommunications marketplace”).

But there is another layer of regulation that is quickly gaining attention. If Net Neutrality is about the form of the internet (its structure and broad organization), there is a growing need to consider questions about the regulation of the content of the internet. Over the years, the internet has been a vector for some amazingly good and amazingly bad actions by humans. The differences in the kind of regulatory concept at play are hard to understate. Rather than comparing it to different video games, I would compare it to the difference between a video game and a tabletop game.

1) I’ve always been fascinated by the dawn of the computer age. My childhood was the tail-end of a world in which homes did not have internet access. By the start of law school, everyone looked up famous cases and Latin phrases on Wikipedia during class (except for the people who did the reading the night before- they looked it up before class). I’ve often compared the early days of the internet to a kind of Wild West setting: a lawless frontier where fundamental questions about the mold of civilization were not yet settled. I thought most of those questions would be settled by 2015. We are not close to a consensus on rules. Indeed, we are still testing what types of rules are feasible or desirable.

Video games are literally made of rules: the computer code that constitutes the game itself. Tabletop games are made of… usually cardboard, or some kind of paper. (Occasionally, they have some plastic – or even metal if you got the collector’s edition.) This may sound like a silly or vacuous distinction, but it has important ramifications for the kinds of problems that can happen in a game, and the kinds of solutions that will (or won’t) be effective.

2) Lawlessness can lead to problems. This was probably not known until 2 decades of unfettered internet, but now we know. Free to do anything, people have tried very hard to do everything. Every app, platform, hosting site, game, or program online that gets big enough eventually starts to experience just about every problem type that humans can present. From intellectual property disputes to death threats, from fraud to manslaughter, the internet has been a way for people to discover criminal behaviors that past generations could never have the opportunity to access. The unethical choices of both multi-national companies and village simpletons are available for repeated viewing.

In a video game, the code can sometimes glitch and create problems for players. The code can also execute perfectly, but there may be complaints about the design of the game itself (a level being too difficult or some power or tactic being of an unsuitable level of power). With some difficulty, players can cheat by actually breaking the code, but more games can detect this (and especially so in professional e-sports settings). In a tabletop game, anyone can cheat, the rules may be wrongly applied (or not applied at all), and all manner of chaos can ensue. DDoSing an opponent during a game might be a little bit akin to literally flipping a table during a game of Monopoly or checkers,

3)  YouTube’s takedown system is already an example of an effort to regulate content, and it already shows some of the challenges with instituting a content regulation system: people will find ways to game that system. Any system of regulation will have two negative outcomes: it will penalize the innocent, and it will be dodged by the guilty. The most you can hope for is that it will protect most of the innocent and it will penalize most of the guilty. The US justice system, even when working as intended, will sometimes produce undesirable results: a guilty person will go free, and an innocent person will go to prison. The hope is that this happens very infrequently.

The most common reaction to bad behavior online has been for authoritative parties to do nothing. The most common reaction by authoritative parties to actually do something has been to ban the bad actor. The most common reaction to this ban is to come back with a different username or account.

In video games, cheaters are often banned (if they are making the game worse for other players). But in table top games, people who ruin the game are just not invited back. No one will play with them anymore. People might hang out with someone less if they behaved in a wildly unacceptable way during a casual weekend game of Risk or Werewolf. In a video game, bad behavior has very limited consequences. In a tabletop game, bad behavior can have lots of meaningful implications.

 

4) What would it look like to regular content? Getting it wrong is easy — which is the primary reason that’s what’s going to continue to happen. Whether trying to penalize criminals or regulate behavior online, creating a fair and ethical system that consistently produces more good results than bad ones is difficult. One problem is that incentives are at odds: most platforms want to turn a profit, and if bad behavior yields a net gain, the platform needs a solution that will actually make more money than the current bad behavior (plus the cost of implementing the remedy). Another problem is that platforms tend to think of regulating their content the way that most Americans think about regulations: an appointed governing authority (or combination of authorities).

 

Conclusion

You can’t make people be good, but you can keep deleting all of their manifestations of their behavior on the internet: You can suspend or ban accounts, and eventually IP addresses. You can automatically censor strings of characters, and continually update the list of banned strings. These will continue to be the solutions offered, and they will continue to mostly fail while they almost half-succeed.

Over a decade ago, Lawerence Lessig asserted that laws are of four types: market, cultural, legal, and architectural. It turns out that enforcing the legal type of law in a digital space is very difficult. But cultural norms practically enforce themselves. And architectural laws are always already enforced. Market rules can be fickle, but persuasive. A lot of efforts to regulate content will fail because they will hinge on the concepts of legal enforcement.

The lack of rules and regulations is what made the internet a place where amazing things could happen. Without rules to stop imagination and creativity, people created art, solved problems, built positive communities, and enriched themselves and each other. In that same landscape: without rules to stop hate and anger, people created harassment and bullying, invaded privacy, ruined lives, occasionally killed people, and destroyed a lot of good in the world. Lawless frontiers are the best opportunity for the most beautiful, important, and inspiring expressions of humanity. They are also the best opportunities for the most despicable, dangerous, and damaging expressions of humanity. What the internet becomes will be decided—has always been decided—by what people bring to it.

Employer Facebook Checks: How the Law Struggles with Culture and Ignores Metaphysics

Question of privacy in cyberspace cover a vast range of applications. One that I find interesting is the use of social media as a tool by potential employers to research prospective employees. This is interesting because it is at an intersection of cultural, technology, law, and metaphysics.

It is increasingly common for employers to check on a prospective employee’s Facebook page (or other social media). I like to use the case study of Stacy Snyder in this NYTonline article: http://goo.gl/bMw0Kl

The issue is that a student-teacher was dismissed over a photo on her MySpace (that dates the example a bit, eh?) that was captioned “Drunken Pirate.” This situation becomes the image of concern: an employer delving into your personal (yet published) photo album to look for objectionable material.

Let me divide up the issues:

1) The legal and/or cultural claim to privacy. Before Facebook or MySpace, it would be extraordinary for an employer to ask to see photos from your latest party as part of the application process (barring government security clearance checks). Although social media has allowed us to share such personal material with a wider range of friends, we are not culturally comfortable simply surrendering previously private/personal material to the entire public sphere.

2) Context is everything. Bill Waterson’s iconic character, the rascally 2nd-grader Calvin, once explained that people are wrong to assert that “photos never lie,” for, in fact, all they do is lie. To illustrate, Calvin clears one area of his room and puts on a tie to have himself photographed as a clean, tidy young boy (he is normally dressed in a t-shirt and has a notoriously messy bedroom). So it may be argued with Facebook photos, Tweets, etc: Can a single snapshot, sentence, or post represent an individual- even partially? Can it be completely incorrect? Without further explanation, how badly can it be misinterpreted? This claim speaks not only to the protection of the poster, but also raises the question of whether investigating an applicant’s social media is truly helpful in obtaining accurate data about the applicant. A related issue here is the notion of Performance Identity online (see: Life on the Screen by Sherry Turkle). Many posts and photos may be uploaded not as a reflection of actual identity, but as an effort to entertain or amuse a particular audience.

3) The Metaphysical puzzles of being and identity over time. One of the core points of the NYTonline article linked above is that the internet makes possible the storage of everything we say or do- FOREVER. One question is whether applicants ought to be judged by high school or college photos or posts. Indeed, the question is founded on an ancient metaphysical quandary: what is the relationship with one’s self over time? We have a cultural concept of “not being the same person” at age 15 as at age 30. Yet right now, many 30 year old job applicants could be in the position to defend the digital traces left by their 15 year old selves.

The final point to note here is that Facebook was not designed to be a massive social media platform through which employers scouted and screened applicants. It was a way for college (and later high school) students to communicate and make limited broadcasts to a select audience. It was a kid’s toy, really. To me, it still is- I think that’s why my generation sometimes feels weird that our parents have Facebook profiles. The platform was never made for “grown-ups” or “grown-up things.” That was an accident, and treating it otherwise is a mistake.

Privacy (as the Withholding of Information) in the Information Age

Business professionals in e-commerce talk about information like it is today’s fundamental commodity. Yet information— raw data— is less helpful than we tend to think. Privacy becomes harder to maintain in an era in which business and government think that more data is always better and that accruing data will solve problems. Information is necessary, but not sufficient, to solving problems and pushing progress along.

Lots of entities want information: governments want information about their citizens, employers want information about their employees, corporations want information about their consumers, etc. Such entities have always wanted information, but only recent technological developments have made it reasonable to obtain and organize that information. The biggest remaining barrier to such information collection is the ethical and legal concept of privacy. My contention is that the mere gathering of data is less helpful than the gatherers might think.

One way to think of this issue is to see human action as having two components: 1) an internal motivation or attitude and 2) an external display of action. So, if I purchase a large supply of plastic drinking cups, the store computers may recognize my purchase and correlate it to the kinds of other items people purchase with drinking cups: plastic cutlery, snack food, soda, and so forth. The store wants to predict my motivation by examining my action and correlating my action with similar actions and using inductive reasoning to sell me more things. But what if my motivation in buying many cups is to have a cup stacking competition? Or to have a 2nd grade class plant lima beans? The problem with relying heavily on gathering information is that you can only make guesses about the internal state of the actor.

The debatable assertion is this: Humans cannot be captured by data sets. Some (who probably favor Hume) may say they can, but it must be conceded that the data set must become extremely, extremely large. Perhaps more importantly, some elements essential to that data set cannot be collected through transaction records, e-mails, Facebook “likes”, tweets, and all other collectable data. Seen in this way, a reasonable fear emerges: as entities gather data, they act on that data as though it is a more complete picture than it actually is. Another way to state this issue is “data does not explain itself.”

There are a few important takeaways about the limits of the power of data:

1) You don’t get to know people from their Facebook profiles.

2) Stores know what people buy, but not always why they buy them.

3) Privacy can protect both parties from an incomplete picture.

4) Data is a raw material. It must be processed with understanding, refined through meaning and context, and crafted with wisdom into usable information and then into intelligence.

5) Computer systems can record observations of fact and interact according to algorithm, but cannot “understand” any “significance” or “meaning” of any data.

NOTE: There is so much to this subject! I expect to return (probably repeatedly) to this subject in more specific settings to explore deeper nuances and applications of issues.

Cheat Codes, Privacy, and Disobedience: Generation Y’s Perspective.

I saw a YouTube video of some teens who had devised a most wise and useful way to spend their time. They call it “Gallon Smashing.” The idea is simple: walk through a not-too-crowded supermarket with one or two plastic gallon jugs of some liquid (milk will do). When no one is looking, smash the gallons on the floor and immediately pretend to have tripped and caused the messy spill accidentally. It’s a way to destroy property and get away with it- in fact, you come out of it looking like the hapless, innocent victim. It has all of the hallmarks of Generation Y: dastardly and unimportant destructiveness while deceiving others into letting you take on the role of the innocent victim.

My assessment of at least part of this phenomenon is that GenY has the power-fighting spirit of recent generations without the willingness to come face to face with that power. Generation X would have walked into the store, smashed the gallon of milk without any pretense, given the finger to onlookers, and walked back out or gone peacefully with the security officer (because GenX was indifferent enough to not care about getting in trouble). The protesters that preceded GenX would have entered the store with a megaphone, announced their destruction of the gallon of milk and the political motivations behind it, burned a draft card and/or bra, and would continue to make a scene until several police used tear gas and a fire hose to subdue and detain the individual.

But Generation Y? We’re used to anonymity. We feel entitled, not to fight against things or to get to have things, but to get away with things. We don’t fight the system head on, we don’t glare indifferently at the system with our middle fingers raised, but we certainly don’t support the system more than any previous generation. When our adolescents fight authority, they do it with a smile and overtly expressed support, while sneaking decisively and quietly behind authority’s back. I think this goes hand-in-hand with a generation that grew up with the anonymity of the internet. Our generation grew up with screen names and cheat codes. Previous generations saw a need to be in only one place at a time and being only one person at a time (though you could be different hour-to-hour). This generation attempts multiple existences, multiple states of mind, simultaneously. Perhaps formative years spent embracing a Cyberspace which bends previously accepted rules of time and space leads to a sense of duplicity as commonplace and identity as detachable and replaceable. Perhaps, as children, we used too many “God Mode” cheats: we became too used to invulnerability and doing whatever we wanted. (see also: Brene Brown’s TED talk on “The Power of Vulnerability”)

Of course, for all their deceptive ploys and crafty planning, GenY still posts their exploits to YouTube and Facebook, so it’s hard to be too worried about them as a threat. There is a contradiction in the rising generation: a need to publicize the secretive. The dilemma for them is the paradoxical need to be underground megastars, widely known among only a select few. They might be more deceitful and dishonest than previous generations, but they also feel a need to overshare exploits.

“Everyone wants to pull off the crime of the century…. /And get away with it. Get away with it. We Americans are freedom loving people, and nothing says freedom like getting away with it. /We went from Billy the Kid to Richard Nixon, Enron, Exxon, O.J. Simpson… /We used to dream about heroes, but now it’s just how to beat the system.” – Guy Forsyth, “It’s Been A Long, Long Time”